Archive for the 'KHOW' Category

Before she interviewed Dudley Brown, who spontaneously called her show this morning, KHOW 760-AM’s Mandy Connell told her listeners she had no opinion about Rocky Mountain Gun Owners, which Brown directs.

After the interview, Connell, an arch conservative, said she had an opinion–and I’m guessing you will too if you listen below.

In this case, Brown talked as if he has more of a right to interfere in gun legislation at the state Capitol than the Independence Institute has because RMGO bought and paid for the state GOP Senate majority. And he went on about it, implying he’d organize primaries against five Republicans who voted against a violation of state Senate rules yesterday.

Connell started the conversation, which was first reported by Complete Colorado, with a question about why RMGO was opposed to raising the limit on magazine capacity from 15 to 30 rounds.

Then she asked, “So, why take out Dave Kopel? Why go after him?”

Brown: Well, look, I don’t want to go into personalities on a public format. Dave Kopel is a wonderful writer. On strategy, he’s horrid! Dave Kopel is actually a Democrat. He has always advocated for compromise at every single turn. Every time we’ve ever had a gun bill in Colorado, he’s always advocated for compromise. And in fact, Dave Kopel is the one who fixed the Democrats mag ban so it did not include shotguns. He showed Senator Mary Hodge how to do it, mechanically. Probably being the one who enabled it to pass. Now, I have no qualms about being honest. But in politics, I don’t want it to be about personality. I want it to be about principle and strategy.

But, in all honesty, we simply don’t agree with Dave Kopel and never have, and for that matter, the Independence Institute, none of whom got these legislators into office.

It’s our organization and our PAC that spent the money to elect the legislature and take the Senate from the Democrats. We were the biggest funders of Republican candidates in the last election. Far bigger than the NRA. And let me be clear, I don’t know if this is – you could ask them, but my understanding is even the NRA opposes this compromise. Now, if the NRA opposes a compromise because it’s too squishy on the gun issue, that pretty much means that it’s as far left as it can be because the NRA usually buys into every compromise. In this case, my understanding is that they opposed it, too. Look there aren’t the votes to pass a 31 round ban –the repeal of the 30 ban, to make it 31. But there aren’t the votes for repeal, unless the Republicans take the House and the Governor’s mansion, neither of which are assured…

Now, to those people who say, “Wait a minute! I want to be able to buy my 30 round magazine!” I say, “Shut your pie hole and go buy one!” There are many retailers who sell them right now. They ignore the law, and God Bless them for doing so. And in many cases, your District Attorney and your sheriff won’t be involved in any cases against you, anyway…

Connell said, “You’re saying, ‘Go break the law.’”

Brown: I’m saying, “Do what you want.” But, the fact is, the ban, really — it’s like jaywalking. There really is no ban, right now. It’s largely a ban on some of the businesses who manufacture and didn’t want to be here, anyway.

“Now, wait a minute, Dudley, here’s the thing,” replied Connell. “You just said earlier you don’t want to make this about personalities, but the Facebook post by Rocky Mountain Gun Owners says, “Does Bloomberg have a sleeper cell in Colorado? All of a sudden, Dave Kopel is fighting as hard as he can to save the magazine ban. Maybe it’s because he’s a lifelong registered Democrat and a Ralph Nader voter.” So, that hardly sounds like you’re arguing the issue. It sounds like a personal attack.”

Brown: Well, that actually, we didn’t start this.

Connell: “We didn’t start it” is not a mature response.

Brown: We didn’t start the battle, Mandy! But I can guarantee you, we’re ending it….

Connell: You know, Dudley, I’ve got to take a break. But, one thing I will say about Jon Caldara is he is no man’s puppet…So, you are saying you don’t want to make this personal, and yet you keep making personal attacks. I just want to point that out.

Brown: That’s because, frankly, we were ambushed in a dark alley…From our perspective, this is a principled strategy. Yesterday morning, if you followed what happened in the House, we forced a recorded vote on the entire House floor on the full mag ban repeal, Senate Bill 175. Kim Ransom and Justin Everett and a number of others forced the recorded vote. And they had the chance. The Democrats had the chance to break ranks and vote with us. And they didn’t, of course. And five Republicans voted wrong. And all five of those Republicans are suspect, and in danger in the next primary…

Connell: I appreciate the phone call. [hang up with Brown] I now have an opinion about Rocky Mountain Gun Owners.

Even if you’re a just a talk-radio host, you shouldn’t just say “Yap,” as KHOW 630-AM’s Mandy Connell did yesterday, when your special guest, in this case, Rep. Ken Buck (R-CO), insults the President.

“He’s a wonderful orator,” Buck told Connell during her morning show yesterday. “And he makes everybody happy. The reality is, that he has no intention of flattening the tax code. He has every intention of making sure that he is creating a majority vote, a 51 percent vote, of people who are receiving benefits from the government that they wouldn’t otherwise receive.”

As I noted, Connell’s reply to this was the utterance of “Yap.” My own thought was more along the lines of WTF.

Where’s Buck’s proof that Obama has a political agenda to create a “51 percent vote” of Americans “receiving benefits from government that they wouldn’t otherwise receive.”

Buck isn’t a lonely District Attorney anymore–or a candidate making yet another gaffe that reporters don’t have time to dig into. Now he’s a Congressman who should be held accountable–even by radio hosts–for his insults and baseless mud slinging.

Talk-radio hosts like to think of themselves as a voice of the people, because anyone can call in (and get slapped around, if you’re on the wrong show). But there’s some truth to the notion that talk radio can give average people a platform.

On her morning show this morning, KHOW’s Mandy Connell was apparently the first media figure to question Beauprez about the ad’s allegation that he supported Amendment 22, which required background checks at gun shows, Beauprez said:

Beauprez: 12:20: “Mandy, this attack from [RMGO President] Dudley [Brown] is far too familiar. And let me emphasize Dudley… Dudley is in it for Dudley. What’s going on right now is Dudley is sending out an ad attacking me. This is Saul-Alinsky-like. You gotta have an enemy in a political fight. Dudley likes to name me as the enemy. He’ll throw in a little bit of money. And I’ll emphasize a little bit, because this is not a very big ad buy. He’ll throw a little bit of money at me, and then he’ll wave it as a red flag to his members and say, ‘Hey look! I went and got the bad guy, and send me your dough.” Dudley will get a big net profit out of this, as he always does off of the kinds of projects he does. It’s all about Dudley and lining his pocket.”

Beauprez went on to acknowledge his support of Amendment 22, “in the post-Columbine era,” but said his endorsements and subsequent actions show he is pro-gun through and through.

Connell also asked Beauprez about about RMGO’s allegation that Beauprez “voted for mandatory trigger locks and a ban on traditional ammunition in Congress.”

Beauprez: “That is a brand new call to me. I can’t deny that because I don’t know what piece of legislation something might have been wrapped into that was rotten legislation to begin with.”

Connell’s questions were direct and substantive, covering not only guns but pot, immigration, and other topics.

You wouldn’t expect Hubbard to block Sirota over one article, even if it comes down hard on The Post. Hubbard gets hit constantly.

So I asked Hubbard if it was true, he wrote:

“No, it’s not true.

I tried to unfollow him several months back. For some reason his tweets kept coming through, so I blocked him. My guess, and I’m not going to waste any time researching it, was that it was in the spring or early summer. It’s nothing personal.”

In the Harper’s piece, Sirota argues that big-city dailies, even in their weak state, wield as much power over civic life or more than they did in their heyday. Hence the article’s title, “The Citizen Kane Era Returns.”

There’s no question The Post is a major force in Colorado politics, and Sirota’s argument has some validity, and it’s fun to read, especially with so many local media observers quoted.

But Sirota gets carried away at times, for sure. He doesn’t prove that the Post is pushing a conservative agenda in its news section.

For example, in trying to prove that The Post’s conservative bias ushered Michael Bennett into the U.S. Senate, Sirota writes:

Considering that a mere 14,200 votes would have changed the outcome of the race, the Post’s omissions and evasions almost surely helped secure the Senate nomination for Bennet. They also serve as a smoking gun in a larger journalistic crime against voters.

In particular, Sirota thinks Bennet’s financial deals, as Denver Public Schools Superintendent, should have gotten more play in The Post, which, Sirota argues, would have sent shock waves throughout other Denver media and to the public.

I think the story was indeed underplayed in The Post, and it should have been reported earlier by the newspaper, but to assert that it was a game changer? No way.

Actually, conservatives can make a stronger argument that the McInnis plagiarism story was overplayed by an inordinately powerful Denver Post and resulted in the election of Hick. This might have better proven Sirota’s point about the staying power of newspapers.

But neither side can prove bias at The Post, which is largely owned by venture capitalists, not Singleton.

No doubt Singleton likes power, but he doesn’t get his way like he wants to, as described in Sirota’s article:

“He fancies himself an oldfashioned power broker–publisher,” says former Rocky Editor John Temple. who is now a managing editor at the Washington Post. “He loves the idea that he can call people into his office and be in the center of everything.”

So overall, with respect to the part of Sirota’s piece that focuses on The Post, Sirota is right that the paper, even in economic decline, has more power than it deserves, and in some ways as much or more influence on politics, due to its influence on elites, as it ever had.

But as for a conservative agenda, beyond cultural norms, I don’t see it, overall, though you can point to anecdotes, just like righties do in alleging liberal bias.

If you listened to progressive talk-radio host David Sirota and conservative Michael Brown on the radio, before they were paired up on KHOW’s new afternoon talk show, you know that Brown was explicitly pro-Romney.

So you wonder, how will this play out on their new show, called the Rundown.

Will Brown be telling listeners to vote for Romney, while Sirota says both candidates are, as Ralph Nader liked to say, tweedle dee and tweedle dum?

If so, who wants to listen that one-sided conversation? It sounds too much like some bizarre permutation of the conservative love fest you’d hear on the Caplis and Silverman Show, which used to occupy Sirota and Brown’s afternoon slot on 630-AM KHOW (3 – 7 p.m.)

Asked about this via email, Brown, whom President George Bush thought was doing a “heck’ve a job” during the Katrina disaster, wrote:

Brown: “I do plan to vote for Romney and will actively support him. I probably am more enthusiastic about Romney than Sirota is about BHO. But, having said that, we’re not really discussing that issue much on air. My guess is left-leaning listeners might be upset at both of us — me for supporting Romney and David for criticizing BHO.”

Exactlty. Left-leaning listeners like me might get upset and turn off the radio, like I did when Caplis and Silverman piled on Obama. I mean, among other things, it’s boring, even if you don’t love Obama. It’s bad radio.

I asked Sirota how he’d counter Brownie when he starts telling us to vote Romney, or that Romney will do a heck’ve a job as President:

Sirota: “When this show was formulated, one thing that was central was that our show was not going to be agenda radio. It’s not going to be Crossfire. I really take that to heart. It’s not foremost on my mind to convince people to vote for one candidate or another. I’m not enthused about Obama or Romney.”

But, still, I said to Sirota, what if Brownie is sitting next to you telling people to vote for Romney?

“I would ask people to think about how much of a difference there is between Obama and Romney,” Sirota told me. “There are some differences but they are not epic.”

Sirota said that when the issue of Obamacare come up on a recent show, Brownie trashed the legislation but Sirota defended aspects of it, saying he did not like the way it was structured but that “uninsured people will at least be a little better off.”

“I was not a big proponent of Obamacare, but I took general side of the progressive push for universal health care, and he disagreed.”

“One of the things we are trying to do,” Sirota continued, “is to remove the issues from the candidates themselves, and talk about the bigger issues.”

“The only way to reach a broad audience of listeners is to get to the bigger, more universal issues. That’s one of the reasons the presidential race won’t be a big part of our show.”

“The people aren’t interested in the minutia,” Sirota said.

It’s true that issues inspire and motivate people more than the horse race, and usually more than candidates.

But if Brownie is holding forth about how we should vote Obama out, I’m hoping Sirota will tell us who he’s going to vote for and why, even if he thinks the difference is small. It will make for a better radio show.

If you’ve been listening to President Obama lately, you know he talks a lot about Americans helping each other out, having each other’s backs, and creating opportunity for those who deserve it.

This obviously contrasts with the themes you hear a lot from conservatives, who are all about going it alone, and it’s not clear what happens if you go down, even for a little while. Someone might pick up the lifeline and help you out, if you’re in trouble, but god forbid it’s the governement.

One of many conservative talk show hosts in Colorado who sings this tune is Michael heck’ve-a-job Brownie, whose new radio show (with progressive David Sirota) starts today on KHOW during the slot formerly occupied by Caplis and Silverman.

Here’s an example of Brownie’s right-wing messaging in action, from his Feb. 28 KOA show, and it’s an excellent sample of the conservative message machine in action.

Brownie begins below by reading a reading a quote from an Obama speech:

“America is about all being in it together, about giving people a hand up. When our assembly lines grind to a halt, we work together to get them going again. And when someone else falters, we give them a hand up because we are all in it together.”

[Brownie's analysis begins:] And we’re not all in it together…. I’d like to be the guy who took down Limbaugh… because if I don’t have that desire to grow and get better and do the very best I can, I’m wasting your time…And in terms of giving people a hand up, what’s the difference between giving people a hand up or a hand down?…

[Another Obama quote:] “The idea that we are all in it togetether and that I’m my brother’s keeper ad my sister’s keeper, that’s a value,” said Obama.

[Brownie's analysis:] Yes, I would agree Mr. President. But the problem is, when you say the idea that we are all in it together and that I’m my brother’s keeper, you literally mean you, the government, the presidency. ..

I absolutely and unequivically disagree with that value. I, individually, am my other individual’s brother keeper. I am my sister’s keeper. I am my neighbor’s keeper. You, the government, are not my keeper….

If you hated KHOW’s Caplis & Silverman, which I didn’t, because it was right (Silverman) vs. more-right (Caplis), and the left was absent, then you’ll love this news: July 16, KHOW will launch The Rundown with David Sirota & Michael Brown 3-7 p.m.

I’ve always wondered whether a real left-right show would work on conservative talk radio. Now we’ll find out.

These guys don’t tow the party line, which makes you wonder how many guests will go on the show. But they’re both smart, yes, even Brown, and so maybe the show can keep the attention of political junkies even without the great guests (mostly GOP) that Caplis and Silverman had.

They’ve co-hosted previously on KOA radio.

Sirota just emailed the note below to his subscribers:

Friends:

Just some news I wanted to pass on to you – Clear Channel Media and Entertainment this afternoon officially announced the launch of “The Rundown with Sirota and Brown” – a brand new radio show that I will be co-hosting with President George W. Bush’s former FEMA director Michael Brown.

The show will launch on July 16th and air weekdays from 3pm to 7pm MT on Colorado’s top-rated KHOW. You will be able to listen to it on your radio dial in Colorado at AM630 or from anywhere on the iHeartRadio app or at www.khow.com.

After 3 plus years hosting the award-winning morning show on Colorado’s progressive talk station AM760, I will definitely miss my current job. Creating a show rooted in journalism has been a truly amazing experience. That journalistic mission is what I am focused on bringing into The Rundown on KHOW – and I’m thrilled at the opportunity. It’s a really big opportunity.

I hope you’ll tune in – and hope you are all having a great summer.

Rock the boat,

David

I hope to catch up with Sirota to discuss the show when he returns from vacation.